Weekend Reads and Watches Assignment…

So I just checked the e-mail, a public e-mail account, which I do often sometimes during the breaks, and I found one. A subject line is how I find these. “Dear Mr. Limbaugh, I disagree with your assessment of what this election is about. The main voting issue is not immigration or health care. It is that the Democrat voting base is a bunch of nuts.” I wish that were true. I have tried to make that a fundamental issue in people’s minds.

The literal insanity, the psychological disorders… And I mean that with every essence of my being. I think much of the Democrat Party agenda has derived from their voters being psychologically screwed up. They are suffering psychological disorders because of things that have happened to them in their lives, and they want to blame the country for it. They want to blame the patriarchy; they want to blame the founding.

But then they claim that the only fix for it is the government punishing the people that did whatever happened to these people. And the Democrat Party has embraced all of these various psychological disorders and abnormalities and has tried to normalize them all by enshrining them as policy planks in the Democrat Party platform, if you will. And that’s how we end up with people that represent two-tenths of 1% of the population, giving the whole weight of the Democrat Party thrown behind them to make their issue one in which the otherwise vast majority can end up being bullied into submission.

I have tried ever since… Well, even before, but specifically since the Kavanaugh hearings to make the point that that’s what we’re up against, and that’s what is going to end up triumphing and winning if the Democrats win the House. All of that abnormality is going to achieve power. And when they have the power to actually implement their forms of punishment against groups of people they blame for whatever is wrong in their lives… These are not people that think they can fix things themselves.

They are not people that… They’ve not been raised this way. The Democrat Party does not promote that kind of thing in human behavior. The Democrat Party is happy to help them blame others, happy to make them think they have no hope, that the deck is stacked against them because of whatever. Their skin color, their sexual orientation, their gender identity, their religion, whatever.

Democrat Party is helpful in making all these people believe they are justified in thinking that life is miserable because of all these horrible other people and what they have done to them. And the Democrat Party says, “Let us fix it for you. We’ll become your champions. We’ll punish these people for you.”

And the Democrat voter basically says, “Yeah, yeah, yeah.” Now, what you need to do is examine every Democrat constituency group that they’ve been representing for the last, take your pick, 10 years, 20, 50, and ask yourself if any of the people in those groups have become happy, have had their issues addressed and fixed, or are they as miserable as they’ve always been?

Are they as angry as they have always been, if not more so? Are they still complaining today about things they were complaining about, injustice, discrimination, mistreatment, that they’ve been complaining about for 50 years? What has the Democrat Party done to fix any of this? The answer is nothing. Although the Democrat Party has done its best to punish people who are not Democrats.

And Pelosi has recently suggested that there’s more of that on tap if the Democrats win. People that don’t vote for them, don’t go along with them are going to “suffer consequences,” she said. But the Democrats have tried to punish all these people, but it has not made their voters any happier. There isn’t any happiness on the left. You can’t find any. There’s no laughter. There’s no enjoyment, contentment. Why do we want them winning? […]

As Selwyn Duke alluded to recently, and others noted more directly years ago, modern liberalism – aided and abetted by the Democratic Party – is a dastardly tool of the enemy of all mankind. It’s like a modern-day Mephistopheles luring hordes of Faustian fools with promises of worldly pleasure – especially sex – and perpetual provision from a paternalistic, godless nanny state. Such dark pursuits consume their personal lives and thus their politics as well. This is what results when one makes a god of government.

Speaking of “dark pursuits,” it seems that witches now outnumber Presbyterians in the U.S. Speaking of witches, it seems the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation brought them even more into the mainstream of modern liberalism – so much so that, now that we’ve entered the Kavanaugh era of the Supreme Court, Vox saw fit to report on how modern-day witches are helping the “faithful” to cope.

Part of this coping involves placing hexes on Justice Kavanaugh. New York City witches have an event scheduled this coming Saturday for devoted occultists. A $10 donation is suggested for those attending. Half of the proceeds will be split between Planned Parenthood and an LGBT organization. Justice Kavanaugh is just the latest target of those invoking witchcraft to “magically bind” President Trump and his administration.

As Rod Dreher implies, it’s no surprise that witchcraft attracts feminazis who wish to rebel against age-old family norms and anything remotely resembling Christianity. Thus, it’s also little surprise that witchcraft fits so nicely under the tent of modern liberalism.

I’ve never bothered to do a deep dive into the numbers behind this chart for several reasons. First, it defies common sense. Take abortion as an example. I’m so old I can recall that George McGovern—who was wrongly called the candidate of “acid, amnesty and abortion” as least when it came to abortion—actually had two pro-life Catholic running mates on his 1972 presidential ticket. What are the chances a pro-life Democrat could be a presidential running mate today? Are there even any pro-life Democrats left?* There used to be quite a number of them, even Al Gore and Richard Gephardt on occasions. Could a Democratic presidential candidate today repeat what Bill Clinton said in 1992—that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare“? To the contrary, it is evident that Democratic Party orthodoxy about abortion today is like Democratic Party orthodoxy about slavery in the 1850s: it must be celebrated as a positive good. But because there are so few votes on abortion-related issues cast in Congress in recent years this shift doesn’t show up on any quantitative metrics. (By the way and for the record: McGovern’s actual position on abortion in 1972—before Roe v. Wade—was that the issue should be left up to the states to regulate. Just imagine what would happen to any Democrat who said that today.)

I could go on with other examples, such as the marked shift in Democratic Party fondness for single-payer health care, since it is obvious that Obamacare fixed very little. But the biggest flaw in this exercise is so blindingly simple that it is almost embarrassing to point out. The analysis purports to show that Republicans moved to the right in the 1980s and kept going that way. There is some truth to this, of course. But what else happened in the 1980s and 1990s? Hmmmm. . . What could it be? Ah, that’s right: Republicans started winning more elections! First Reagan for president, and then for Congress starting in 1994. And since Republicans are forever supposed to be the Washington Generals to the Democrats’ progressive Globetrotters, something is clearly wrong with the order of the universe when Republicans win. If Republicans moved to the right and then started winning more elections, what does it say about the American people, or at least the preferences of voters? Liberals rarely say openly what they think, though when we do, we get “deplorables.”

Civil Society: What happens when men physically assault female politicians or threaten them with poison? If those women are Republicans and the attackers are leftists, Democrats greet them with silence, excuses, or worse. So left-wing violence grows.

Here’s what the “tolerant” left has been up to in just the past few days, as the midterm elections near…

The conservative news site Breitbart has been tracking acts of left-wing violence — or active encouragement of it by politicians and journalists — and found more than two dozen in just the first two weeks of this month. The list tops 600 over the past two years.

And what has been the response from leading Democrats and the mainstream media to these attacks, especially those against women? Expressions of outrage from party leaders? Loud denunciations of violence of any kind?

Nope. Mostly crickets.

If they do talk about such acts, Democrats make excuses. They say Trump is to blame, or that Republicans have their own problem with violent extremists, or they complain about Republicans’ use of the term “mob.”

Fundamental misunderstandings of capitalism are peddled to young people on a daily basis. The most glaring example of this trend was a recent tweet by TeenVogue magazine, advertising their capitalism explainer article to teen girls with the caption, “Can’t #endpoverty without ending capitalism!” This is a magazine that caters mainly to a very young, female audience, and whose readers are still forming their opinions on big picture things like what the ideal economic system is. How can such a publication, in good faith, put out something that is so misleading about the basis of our economy?

[…]

TeenVogue is a magazine that makes its money by telling teen girls which lipstick their favorite pop star thinks is in this season and selling ads for makeup, designer clothes, and TV shows. The prosperity of capitalism has allowed people the leisure to buy the sorts of products TeenVogue advertises; its entire model is a capitalist one. So, let’s not take them at their word in their hope to end capitalism.

Why does the left think that using their children to make political points makes those points more valid, in any way shape or form?

[…]

And it makes no sense whatsoever.

First of all the left is not, in general, fond of children. Oh, sure, they talk about the children a lot. “It’s for the children” has been used for gun control, welfare and all the pet programs of the left. But in reality children are far less prevalent on the left than on the right. And most of the left seems to be convinced we are overpopulated and favors lunacy like voluntary human extinction and taxes on families with “too many children.”

[…]

Anyone who claims their children are “terrified” or “can’t sleep” because someone was confirmed or elected is, in fact, saying they have gaslighted the kids into being scared or worried about this stuff. Isn’t that child abuse? Shouldn’t CPS at least investigate?

It might not cure the left of their inveterate need to put their sclerotic, murderous Marxist philosophy in the mouths of innocents – who don’t know that philosophy always results in hundreds of thousands of mass graves – but it might at least make them think twice.

As we head into the 2018 midterm elections and eventually the 2020 presidential race, the expectations Democrats have from voters has stayed the same as previous cycles. The left’s assumption is that women and minorities vote for Democrats because it’s in their best interest and major cultural events back it up.

But over the course of the past two weeks, the left’s strategy of identity politics as a way to divide and conquer American voters has not only failed, it’s backfired.

[…]

Democrat obsession with skin color and gender as a strategy is starting to fall apart and recent cultural events show us how. Nov. 6 is just around the corner and the battle lines for presidential votes are already being drawn. For Democrats, those lines are being crossed as women and minorities vote on interest, not on identity politics.

Follow The Universal Spectator

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 497 other followers

Fair Use Notice

The use of media materials is protected by the Fair Use Clause of the US Copyright Act of 1976 which allows for the rebroadcast of copyrighted materials for the purposes of commentary, criticism, and education.